• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

IMF chief says U.S. needs blend of spending cuts, revenue raising

Boo Radley said:
it doesn't matte much to those who lose them. Unemployed is unemployed. And there is no evidence the private sector is bouncing back. Nor are regulations as much to blame as some like to pretend. The fact is people elsewhere work for a lot less. And they don't have healthcare attached to employment (They have UHC). So, as much as some like to think all would be fixed this way, it won't. Most those people are not leeches, but workers doing a job. You may not want that job done, but it is a job and requires work.
Click to expand...

Let us take the federal DOEd (ED) as an example. Its annual budget is $68.1 billion, and it "serves" 54 million students (all in state, local or private schools). That makes an annual average per student cost to taxpayers of $1,260 (not couting other federal education aid from HHS (head start) and Agriculture (school lunch program) departments. Measured another way, federal spending on K-12 education increased from 0.27 percent of gross domestic product in 1965 to 0.57 percent today. Needless to say, student performance did not improve due to that nearly 50% increase in federal funding.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The 2008/2009 federal spending increase included the "one time", crisis, emergency TARP and stimulus 1 spending (and was 20% more than in 2007), that elevated level of federal spending has been maintained, by continuing reslolution, in each subsequent Obama year. Obama and the MSM can lie and state that Obama never "increased" federal spending but that does not make it so.

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary
Click to expand...


Which is exactly why the Senate Democrats have refused to pass a budget. They utilize a continuing resolution to maintain current federal spending at Bush's original 2009 budget + the $900 billion in TARP money. Its the same stat used for the false claim that Obama has increased the federal budget by the lowest percentage in decades....which is absolute utter BS.
 
Hairytic said:
Why bring up Greece and Spain? There are plenty of other countries that have a system like ours that are thriving, like Germany. I don't see that we over promised anything. There needs to be an adjustment made to social security to compensate for the baby boomers, and when the unemployment rate goes down, it will strengthen the SS system.

When the government issues food stamps, that money gets spent on food which provides employment for stores that provide the food and in turn provides wealth for farmers. Everyone who makes money throug the process pays income taxes which brings the revenue back to the government. Take that spending away and you will see a higher unemployment rate and farmers will need higher substadies to stay in opperation.

Before we had food stamps, a great number of people died during the great depression and dust bowl from starvation. No one starves now because we do have food stamp programs. My point is that if you end food stamps and free or reduced lunches for children in schools, families and children will suffer. Why would we want to let that happen?

There are many ways to address the debt probloem in this country. Cutting out vital programs that people depend on to survive isn't a good policy. I believe we must take care of our own first. You put up an irrational argument. We can't solve the worlds problems before we solve our own first. Yes, it would be nice to end suffering world wide, but we can't do that. We have to start at home and that may inspire the rest of the world to do the same. But, we can't just sit back and watch US citizens starve or go without life saving medical care. IF we do that, then we have nothing to be proud of.
Click to expand...

This is one huge monument to stupid logic. While many of my conservative brethren are not against a safety net, the stark reality is that in the 70's, one in 50 Americans was on food stamps. Now it is one in six. Folks were not starving to death in the 70's, btw.

I am not going to try to explain all the logic fail in your argument, much less your mind. But looking at the paragraph that I bolded, if the government providing funds for the populace to spend was the panacea that you paint it as, then the government giving every single American such as $1000 per month to be used for basic sustenance (food and shelter) would make us a guaranteed economic powerhouse by your logic. The good times would roll and roll.

To further illustrate how retarded your logic and post were, see the paragraph that I italicized. The options are not the hunger of the Great Depression, or the status quo, as you attempt with your pathetic analogy. The analogy is as I illustrate, which is the food assistance that we had in such as the 70's, or what we have now ?

As I advocate, its time to get the **** out of liberal la-la land before we bankrupt everything. Out of the pathetic arguments you attempt to make. If we stay as we are, and as you advocate, we will go off the cliff. In which case, the only satisfaction I will have is watching the parasites wallow in the dry-teat heaves first. That is not much to be thrilled about, btw.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Let us take the federal DOEd (ED) as an example. Its annual budget is $68.1 billion, and it "serves" 54 million students (all in state, local or private schools). That makes an annual average per student cost to taxpayers of $1,260 (not couting other federal education aid from HHS (head start) and Agriculture (school lunch program) departments. Measured another way, federal spending on K-12 education increased from 0.27 percent of gross domestic product in 1965 to 0.57 percent today. Needless to say, student performance did not improve due to that nearly 50% increase in federal funding.
Click to expand...

And factors do you think effect that? The thing about numbers is that you have to know what they mean. Do you less teachers will make education better? Explain how you think that will work.
 
Boo Radley said:
And factors do you think effect that? The thing about numbers is that you have to know what they mean. Do you less teachers will make education better? Explain how you think that will work.
Click to expand...

Do you have any credible statistics that more teachers, and more money thrown at them, has made education "better"? And if so, what was your measure ?

Illustrate at your leisure ;)

Did you go to Jump School liberal ? Did you earn any basic wings ? Or do you just like to pretend ? Clearly you never made it to "senior" or "master", and I doubt you served. Do you know what that even refers to Boo ?
 
Eighty Deuce said:
Do you have any credible statistics that more teachers, and more money thrown at them, has made education "better"? And if so, what was your measure ?

Illustrate at your leisure ;)

Did you go to Jump School liberal ? Did you earn any basic wings ? Or do you just like to pretend ? Clearly you never made it to "senior" or "master", and I doubt you served. Do you know what that even refers to Boo ?
Click to expand...

I don't think I've made that claim. But before we cut or spend shouldn't we identify what the problems are and what if, if any, connection to money and number of teachers contribute.

As for serving, I served in the 82nd. Your mindless and uninformed opinion on what I have or haven't done has no place in this discussion. So do try to focus.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
If most, if not all, of that "infrastucture" already existed then what is all of this new Obama spending about? The bulk of it was to bailout unions, state/local gov'ts, "invest" in green energy and support exactly what Obama blamed Bush for doing. Yes he did!
Click to expand...

The infrustructure has to be maintained and advanced. I don't know what you are talking about bailing out the unions. State and local governments asked for stimulus money to create jobs and strengthen the infrustrure and we need to invest in green energy because that is where the future is headed. A part of what has made America create is that we stayed at the cutting edge of technology. We have been lagging behind the past few decades. Obama blamed Bush for getting us into two very expensive wars with no plan to pay for them and the collapse of our economy happened on Bush's watch. Not to mention that Bush burned through the surplus Clinton left and added trillions to the debt.
 
Born Free said:
Yes I see you could not answer this very basic question. I quote.

"So good, Obama wants to raise the taxes on the rich which will generate around 800 billion over ten yrs. However Obama is borrowing 1.2 trillion a yr adding to our national debt. Thus if he gets his tax hikes he will only have to borrow 1.1 trillion a yr. Now where do you suppose to get all this money to eliminate Obama's over spending of 1.1 trillion a yr, and where are you going to get the money on top of that to start paying down our debt."

The reason you can't answer it is because you have no clue. But the real reason is because liberals think there is no end to the money supply. What is ridiculous is you liberals have no clue how to pay for anything, except raise taxes, but the problem is that does not generate enough money to even make a dent in the 1.2 trillion a yr deficit.

Yep another liberal with free stuff for everyone, who could care less how to pay for it.
Click to expand...

You conservatives love to worship Reagan, but Reagan raised taxes and spend our way out of recession. It's funny that when Obama accepts and brings conservative ideas forward, you conservatives pretend like it wasn't your ideas to begin with. Honestly, conservatives haven't proven themselves to be able to balance a budget and bring a surplus in like Clinton did. One way he did it was to raise taxes. Some spending increases revenue. It's a matter of being efficient on what to cut and what to spend on.
Again, Conservatives haven't had a very good record of putting that practice into action in the recent past.
 
Taylor said:
Neither political party wants to bankrupt it.

Unless the problem has progressed to the point where they simply take the whole leg or arm or anything to keep the person from dying.
Click to expand...

The GOP has been trying to bankrupt social security for decades now. It seems you haven't been listening. As soon as Republicans gain ground in Washington DC, they start proposing to cut medicare and SS which causes them to lose ground. IT has been a visious cycle now for many decades.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
This is one huge monument to stupid logic. While many of my conservative brethren are not against a safety net, the stark reality is that in the 70's, one in 50 Americans was on food stamps. Now it is one in six. Folks were not starving to death in the 70's, btw.

I am not going to try to explain all the logic fail in your argument, much less your mind. But looking at the paragraph that I bolded, if the government providing funds for the populace to spend was the panacea that you paint it as, then the government giving every single American such as $1000 per month to be used for basic sustenance (food and shelter) would make us a guaranteed economic powerhouse by your logic. The good times would roll and roll.

To further illustrate how retarded your logic and post were, see the paragraph that I italicized. The options are not the hunger of the Great Depression, or the status quo, as you attempt with your pathetic analogy. The analogy is as I illustrate, which is the food assistance that we had in such as the 70's, or what we have now ?

As I advocate, its time to get the **** out of liberal la-la land before we bankrupt everything. Out of the pathetic arguments you attempt to make. If we stay as we are, and as you advocate, we will go off the cliff. In which case, the only satisfaction I will have is watching the parasites wallow in the dry-teat heaves first. That is not much to be thrilled about, btw.
Click to expand...

Calling my logic ignorant or retarded doesn't make your logic better. Honestly, can people like you have a conversation without insulting people who have a different point of view than you do?

Have a good day.
 
Boo Radley said:
I don't think I've made that claim. But before we cut or spend shouldn't we identify what the problems are and what if, if any, connection to money and number of teachers contribute.

As for serving, I served in the 82nd. Your mindless and uninformed opinion on what I have or haven't done has no place in this discussion. So do try to focus.
Click to expand...

What ? Do we not yet have enough statistics about throwing money at education ? You criticized another on that topic, and I responded. I believe that "identifying the problems" is a highly subjective futility. We have thrown money at every problem we could liberally think of for four decades. And our results suck. How about you support your earlier conclusions, which I quoted. as otherwise I claim that you are full of ****.

I was with CSC, 2/325. '74-80. What was your unit ? When ?
 
Last edited:
Hairytic said:
Calling my logic ignorant or retarded doesn't make your logic better. Honestly, can people like you have a conversation without insulting people who have a different point of view than you do?

Have a good day.
Click to expand...

My logic was far better than yours. Now, can you rebut what I said, or just go noodle-spine on the debate ?
 
Eighty Deuce said:
My logic was far better than yours. w, can you rebut what I said, or just go noodle-spine on the debate ?
Click to expand...

I do not continue rude conversations. If you wish to continue this conversation then you must restate your argument without insult. Show some common respect. I didn't insult you or your logic. If respect is a part of the conversation, we might can learn from one another. I am not interested in swaping insult for insult.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
What ? Do we not yet have enough statistics about throwing money at education ? You criticized another on that topic, and I responded. I believe that "identifying the problems" is a highly subjective futility. We have thrown money at every problem we could liberally think of for four decades. And our results suck. How about you support your earlier conclusions, which I quoted. as otherwise I claim that you are full of ****.

I was with CSC, 2/325. '74-80. What was your unit ? When ?
Click to expand...

You may want to back and re-read. I asked a question. You are overreacting, and quite emotionally. If you need clarification just ask. If you want to mindless babble on about liberals I really would prefer something more productive.

I was a medic. HHB Divarty. And actually, during the same time frame.
 
Boo Radley said:
You may want to back and re-read. I asked a question. You are overreacting, and quite emotionally. If you need clarification just ask. If you want to mindless babble on about liberals I really would prefer something more productive.

I was a medic. HHB Divarty. And actually, during the same time frame.
Click to expand...

When you choose to make your service a part of every post, as I do "82", and you do with your wings avatar, then it is open to scrutiny in every post. In the past, you did not have your wings as your avatar. Frankly, I am befuddled by any ex-military who is so liberal. Its a disconnect in my experience.

You have yet to support your assertions about money and education. I know them to be unsupported, but would welcome any attempt by you. Otherwise, as I said, your assertions are FOS.
 
Last edited:
Hairytic said:
I do not continue rude conversations. If you wish to continue this conversation then you must restate your argument without insult. Show some common respect. I didn't insult you or your logic. If respect is a part of the conversation, we might can learn from one another. I am not interested in swaping insult for insult.
Click to expand...

Hey. I don't support idiot assertions. Support your original argument, which I rebutted, or admit that you can't. I know that the latter is inevitable. Prove me wrong, or STFU with such nonsense !
 
donsutherland1 said:
From Reuters:

IMF chief says U.S. needs blend of spending cuts, revenue raising | Reuters

Hopefully, the IMF Director-General's perspective will carry some weight in Washington. If the fiscal cliff situation is to be resolved in an effective manner and, more importantly, if the U.S. is to develop a credible and effective fiscal consolidation strategy, Washington's policy makers will need to focus on pragmatic realities. They will need to do so even if it requires them to give greater weight to best practices (and there are examples of successful fiscal consolidation efforts available in the international experience) than entrenched ideology or ideologically-driven assumptions.
Click to expand...

See, now that's funny because IMF also says countries should generally support their economies with spending in a depressed economy.

Lagarde cited the fiscal cliff as the biggest threat to the U.S. economy
Click to expand...
And so we need spending cuts and tax increases.

It's great the know the IMF can really be consistent in its message.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
When you choose to make your service a part of every post, as I do "82", and you do with your wings avatar, then it is open to scrutiny in every post. In the past, you did not have your wings as your avatar. Frankly, I am befuddled by any ex-military who is so liberal. Its a disconnect in my experience.

You have yet to support your assertions about money and education. I know them to be unsupported, but would welcome any attempt by you. Otherwise, as I said, your assertions are FOS.
Click to expand...

Actually, the wings were my avatar for nearly all the years I was on Whistlestoppers political site. It was a special designed created by a member of the moderating team there. When that site folded, I left that behind. But those here who there with me know.

You will find more than few military have some liberal beliefs. The trouble is some spend so much time mindlessly battling liberal stereotypes, that they miss the actual argument before them. Are you one of those?

Now as for money and education, show me where I've made any assertion. I asked a question.
 
Boo Radley said:
And factors do you think effect that? The thing about numbers is that you have to know what they mean. Do you less teachers will make education better? Explain how you think that will work.
Click to expand...

Actually yes. Educational results, when measured by standardized tests, were actually better before the addition of "teachers" to bring the average number of pupils to teacher to under 16. Total (state, local and federal) education spending is now $11,400 per student, an all time high. Even the NEA admits that the number of teachers is not nearly as important as the quality of those teachers. The problem with the current education system is that this spending is almost all under top down control, with little to no say by the student's parent(s). I prefer much more input from the bottom up, allowing those "student" education funds to be applied based on parental/local decision makers and less by "associations", unions and higher levels of gov't.

Higher Education Spending: More Teachers and Programs But Less Learning

Back to School: Teachers Union Loses Members While Per-Pupil Spending Soars

Recent research suggests that resources are not evenly distributed among schools in a school district and that some schools, often those that serve students with greater needs, receive less resources. A large portion of the disparity is related to the allocation of teachers. Higher paid, more experienced teachers tend to be congregated in lower needs schools, while less experienced teachers end up in high needs schools. In many school districts disparity in teacher pay does not factor in the way in which funding distributions are calculated.
Click to expand...

Above quote from: Background & Analysis

The Changing Face of the Teaching Force | @ Penn GSE Research: A Review of Research
 
Hairytic said:
You conservatives love to worship Reagan, but Reagan raised taxes and spend our way out of recession. It's funny that when Obama accepts and brings conservative ideas forward, you conservatives pretend like it wasn't your ideas to begin with. Honestly, conservatives haven't proven themselves to be able to balance a budget and bring a surplus in like Clinton did. One way he did it was to raise taxes. Some spending increases revenue. It's a matter of being efficient on what to cut and what to spend on.
Again, Conservatives haven't had a very good record of putting that practice into action in the recent past.
Click to expand...

Funny how you can't answer the question I repeat:

"So good, Obama wants to raise the taxes on the rich which will generate around 800 billion over ten yrs. However Obama is borrowing 1.2 trillion a yr adding to our national debt. Thus if he gets his tax hikes he will only have to borrow 1.1 trillion a yr. Now where do you suppose to get all this money to eliminate Obama's over spending of 1.1 trillion a yr, and where are you going to get the money on top of that to start paying down our debt."

As for Reagan, I will just say this, he created the largest expansion of our economy in history. Something Obama can only dream about. But unlike Reagan, Obama does not care about the economy or jobs, liberals never have cared about jobs.

Now for once try and answer the question. Which I know you can't because you have no clue, like the rest of the liberal clan. Your a tax, borrow, spend, and give free stuff liberal, and could care less how much the national debt takes us into the black hole of destruction.
 
Hairytic said:
The GOP has been trying to bankrupt social security for decades now. It seems you haven't been listening.
Click to expand...
Listening to far-left demagoguery and scare tactics? No, I try to keep clear of all that.
 
Hairytic said:
The infrustructure has to be maintained and advanced. I don't know what you are talking about bailing out the unions. State and local governments asked for stimulus money to create jobs and strengthen the infrustrure
Click to expand...

That stimulus money went to union employees of the states, and infrastructure, remember shovel ready, there was none.

we need to invest in green energy because that is where the future is headed.
Click to expand...

Wind and solar, does not save one drop of oil. All our power plants are fueled by coal and natural gas that we have a thousand yr supply. Further there is not one green anything that can compete with coal, or natural gas, and worse yet every green today is heavenly subsidized by borrowed dollars. Remember Obama borrows 1.2 trillion a yr to give free money to dead companies. Another battery company that Obama invested 150 million is now out of business.

Obama blamed Bush for getting us into two very expensive wars with no plan to pay for them
Click to expand...

Last I remember Obama has kept us into Afghanistan for the last 4 yrs which he said is the just war, and is going to keep us there for the next 4 all unpaid for. Plus he was the one that added 30,000 troops and we are loosing the war not winning. Then he goes and invades Libya that was not paid for. Remember Obama has borrowed 6 trillion in the past 4 yrs to fund stuff that is not payed for. He is still borrowing 1.2 trillion a yr that is not paid for. For a whopping 10+ trillion added to the national debt in just 8 yrs, more than all the presidents before him combined.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Actually yes. Educational results, when measured by standardized tests, were actually better before the addition of "teachers" to bring the average number of pupils to teacher to under 16. Total (state, local and federal) education spending is now $11,400 per student, an all time high. Even the NEA admits that the number of teachers is not nearly as important as the quality of those teachers. The problem with the current education system is that this spending is almost all under top down control, with little to no say by the student's parent(s). I prefer much more input from the bottom up, allowing those "student" education funds to be applied based on parental/local decision makers and less by "associations", unions and higher levels of gov't.

Higher Education Spending: More Teachers and Programs But Less Learning

Back to School: Teachers Union Loses Members While Per-Pupil Spending Soars



Above quote from: Background & Analysis

The Changing Face of the Teaching Force | @ Penn GSE Research: A Review of Research
Click to expand...

I don't dispute that quality is more important than number. What I dispute is the causal relationship suggested in your numbers. Do you believe the student is exactly the same today? That there are no other factors involved other than money and number of teachers?

And look at what you quote. That money is not distributed equal. Sure, most of us know this. That those with the most need get the least. We know this as well. It is also hard to good good teachers to teach in difficult areas, and when you hold them responsible for making under fed, troubled students from violent and depressed areas achieving success, you lose even more.

So, your link actually works against your thesis. That said, I want to see how you account for other factors, and what you think reducing money will do, especially in problem areas.
 
Born Free said:
Funny how you can't answer the question I repeat:

"So good, Obama wants to raise the taxes on the rich which will generate around 800 billion over ten yrs. However Obama is borrowing 1.2 trillion a yr adding to our national debt. Thus if he gets his tax hikes he will only have to borrow 1.1 trillion a yr. Now where do you suppose to get all this money to eliminate Obama's over spending of 1.1 trillion a yr, and where are you going to get the money on top of that to start paying down our debt."

As for Reagan, I will just say this, he created the largest expansion of our economy in history. Something Obama can only dream about. But unlike Reagan, Obama does not care about the economy or jobs, liberals never have cared about jobs.

Now for once try and answer the question. Which I know you can't because you have no clue, like the rest of the liberal clan. Your a tax, borrow, spend, and give free stuff liberal, and could care less how much the national debt takes us into the black hole of destruction.
Click to expand...

Reagan ended the recession by raising taxes and spending. When the economy is bad, the government can boost the economy with spending, which creates jobs. Once jobs are created, the government gets more revenue and can lower taxes and cut back on spending. Obama is trying to do the same thing, but the republicans in congress have blocked him with fillabusters. The debt isn't as big an issue right now as getting the economy going by creating jobs. Job creation is key to everything. Once jobs are created and the economy is booming, spending can be cut and we can pay down the debt, like Clinton did.
I hope that answers your question. We will get the money to pay down the debt by creating job growth. It's really simple economics, which is something the republicans used to understand.
 
Taylor said:
Listening to far-left demagoguery and scare tactics? No, I try to keep clear of all that.
Click to expand...

That didn't come from the far-left demagoguery, it came from Ryans budget plan. I guess you missed that during the election.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom